The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

Post Reply
User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1

Post by Slartibartfast » Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:43 pm

Apuzzo posted my jibe, and then A.R. Nash joined Fogbow!
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
jtmunkus
Posts: 5692
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm
Location: Cone of Silence

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#2

Post by jtmunkus » Sun Jun 08, 2014 1:30 pm

Typical Obot. Declaring victory over the Apuzzo just because youSekrit Stuffs!
won!
=D>

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#3

Post by Slartibartfast » Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:25 pm

He posted the comment that appeared to be moderated (he approved it after a later comment of his own, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he just didn't see it before posting his comment...).





A. R. Nash, who expounds theories of "natural law" at Mario's which everyone there (birther and obot alike) recognizes as nonsense responded to my post. My answer is below.





For those who have the good fortune not to be familiar with Mr. Nash aka "h20oflife", he believes that the Founders understood that the "natural law principle" of citizenship descending from father to son (women aren't real citizens because they can't be drafted) trumps any written law in any country (including the Constitution). However, the Founders never wrote this down or told anyone and it has been forgotten until Mr. Nash "rediscovered" it (presumably by making it up). It's kind of like Jedi Pauli's "sacred sperm of citizenship" theory but not nearly as rational...








Mr. Nash wrote:





The Desperation of Dr. Communist, who wrote to Art:





First off, I'm not a communist---words have meanings and the attempt by you and your fellow travelers on the right to use words like "communist" as pejoratives merely to smear your political opponents with views they don't hold is pretty much the same thing that the government in George Orwell's 1984 did when they dumbed down the language and done for the same purpose. In other words, it's double plus ungood.





I'm a social democrat (which I believe puts my political beliefs in line with the teaching of Jesus) who advocates a rational mix of socialism---for things like health care, fire, police and infrastructure---and well regulated capitalism for everything else. Your unwillingness or inability to even acknowledge the nuances of my positions is ineffective cover for the lack of merit inherent in your own views---not to mention being intellectually dishonest.








2. My position (and that of the Judicial Branch) is that "natural born citizen" = "born a citizen".





Translation: I and my "fellow travelers" on the Marxist path denounce the use of the word "natural" as being unnatural in the eligibility clause. It is redundant and superfluous, showing that the founders & framers were much more stupid than I am.





I'm not a Marxist either. I think the "pure" versions of all types of economies (communism, socialism, Marxism, capitalism) are disastrous in application.





I don't think it was redundant and it is the implication of your views that suggest the Framers were stupid enough to use the term "natural born citizen" in a completely different way than the well established term "natural born subject" without telling anyone about the change








I base my reasoning on the meaning of "natural-born subject" as used in the common law, even though its meaning included ALL subjects, including naturalized.





Again you misrepresent my position. You also play semantic games with naturalization language from a country in which the rights of natural born subjects and naturalized subjects were the same. For there to be a contradiction, you would need to show that a naturalized subject held an office or was accorded a right reserved solely to natural born subjects.








I am above acknowledging the self-contradiction in the foundation of what "we" (the consensus establishment) believe. I do not have to explain it. YOU simply have to accept it as "reasonable" and true.





There is no contradiction in the foundation of the consensus view, nor is it an "establishment" position. It is clearly articulated in dozens of places, but, at its root is the clear reasoning in the holding of Wong Kim Ark. You obviously don't need to accept it as "reasonable and true", but anyone who is the slightest bit objective or has a rudimentary understanding of the law or is not completely biased against President Obama does.








"Mario's crank theories...will never win a court case; What do you think you are going to get out of it?"





Translation: If two candidates for town treasurer are tied in votes, and they decide to settle it with a game of poker, and one of them is winning by cheating; why would you not back the winner for town treasurer?


After all, he "drew" the most winning hands? Why stick with the candidate who lost while playing honestly? Just accept his loss and give the job to the winner (i.e., the cheater).





You still suck at analogies. Do you think that a judge in any court (let alone the SCOTUS) will issue a ruling supporting Mario's crank theories? Or your crankier theories? I don't. Quite simply, no new cases regarding President Obama's eligibility can be filed (the time when they would have been ripe is long past) and the only existing case in which Mario's ideas were involved has been denied cert at the SCOTUS. Nor is there any hope of your theories winning over public opinion---the birther movement is shrinking, not growing and this lonely little outpost is an illustration of how irrelevant you have become. The fact is that President Obama won two elections fair and square according to the rules (i.e. the US Constitution) and none of your crying about it will change anything.








"At some point you need to accept that you have lost."





Translation: Since the powers-that-be, all of them, are cowards, or accomplices, and have rigged the system on behalf of a candidate guilty of treason against the Constitution, you therefore need to "accept" that having the truth on your side is essentially meaningless and even worthless.





Except for the fact that the truth cannot even be seen from your side. This is something that is accepted by everyone (that is aware of it, any way) outside of the few remaining birther cells. Even in this tiny enclave, you cannot agree on a version of what you call "truth"---yet each of you clings to the belief that whatever delusions you've glommed onto are the Gospel, regardless of the fact that each different theory contradicts the others.








"Try as you might to smear President Obama with baseless allegations,"





Kevin's brain slipped a gear with the accusation of this blog being focused on the counterfeit birth certificate, -justifying the "allegation" of criminal fraud, and election fraud to go along with constitutional fraud.





None of you are willing to accept the Constitutionally backed word of the State of Hawai'i that President Obama was born there. Therefore you have all associated yourselves with the false (and self-contradictory) allegations of fraud. Even if one or both of the COLB and LFBC were forgeries, a prima facie case for fraud could not be made. In light of all of the alleged anomalies "proving" forgery having been scientifically debunked, the case for fraud is ridiculous on its face.








"...you have nothing to show for it but a history of bearing false witness"





Translation: I've just accused you of swearing before a judge and jury to things that you know to be false (as forbidden by one of the Ten Commandments), namely that Obama finessed the production of a fake Hawaiian birth certificate because HDoH never issued him one.





So basically, you are a liar and a deceiver and a criminal and immoral. That's all. Now don't you just want to repent and beg your lord and savior Barackula to forgive you?





It's interesting how the only people to refer to President Obama in messianic terms are those suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome. Seriously, he's a politician, not a messiah. I don't even believe that he is a particularly good one, just far, far better than any of the other choices we've had. If you want to believe that President Obama is the chosen one or the anti-Christ, go right ahead, but don't for a second believe that I subscribe to that nonsense. Nor have I accused anyone of swearing anything before a judge or jury---just breaking one of the Ten Commandments: all of you seem to make demonstrably false statements about President Obama effortlessly and continually. Like you just did regarding President Obama's birth certificate. The state of Hawai'i says differently than you do and the Constitution says that it is their word that counts.








"... and a desperate hold on your impotent prejudice against the lawful POTUS.





Translation: Prejudice of all kind is bad. It is bad of the Jews to be prejudiced against Adolph Hitler and their Nazi exterminators.


And by the authority invested in me, Dr. Communist, I officially declare that under my perverted version of law, Obumer is the LAWFUL POTUS. Yeah, I said it so it must be so.





It is the US Constitution which declares President Obama to be the lawful POTUS---he met all of its requirements to become the president and duly ascended to the office. Twice.





Prejudice of all kinds IS bad. Prejudice is defined as preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. The Nazis were prejudiced against the Jews. The Jews had very good reasons for negative opinions regarding the Nazis. Since most of what birthers "know" about President Obama is based on absurd right wing straw men rather than his actual polices or actions, they are prejudiced against him.








"Not to mention the alienation of friends and family if you are like most birthers."





Translation: In desperation, I'll toss in every conceivable psychological lever I can think of to dump a huge guilt trip and emotional burden on you to convince you that, right or wrong, you should only care about outcome. The ends justify the means.


Ignore Truth. What has it ever done for you? Come on over to the Dark Side. It's great being on the cusp of the first American Socialist Empire.





Many birthers seem to have alienated family, friends and coworkers with their Quixotic jihad. Every one of us is responsible for the karma we put out into the world---its not surprising that the kind of bile that birthers produce tends to drive people away. I'm not suggesting that you ignore the truth, but rather that you ignore the delusion that your confirmation biases have led you to---after all, if you really had the truth on your side, why have you not been able to accomplish anything in six years? Also, if you hate socialism so much, I'm sure that you never make use of emergency rooms, Medicare, the police, the fire department, public roads, Social Security or any of the other socialist programs of the US government, right?





" If you really care about politics, start working to get the candidate of your choice elected in 2016."





Translation: I say "if" because this is just an insincere diversion for you, -something that you don't "really care about". So why not just drop it? Ok? Pleeeease! Do something else; anything else.





Oh, I think that you guys sincerely believe the nonsense you spout, but that doesn't change the fact that you have been completely ineffective at getting any traction with those ideas. Why do you think that is? Are you incompetent? Or is everyone conspiring to make you look like fools? Or could it be that you are simply wrong on the facts and wrong on the law? Or is their some other excuse as to why your entire movement has failed to accomplish anything substantive in six years?








"If all you do is keep whining about President Obama being an evil usurper then the only thing you will get is older and more hateful."





Translation: All of the founders should have followed that advice regarding King George III and his Parliament, then they would have ended up older and enslaved, instead of becoming "older and more hateful", to the point of demolishing the entire British-American relationship.





The Founders didn't fight the Revolution because they hated King George III or everything British---they fought to secure rights (specifically, the right to have a say in how they were being taxed) that the British were denying them. The Founders knew that a people fighting for freedom were much stronger than a country fighting against the British. Your fight is not for freedom or the Constitution as you claim (President Obama followed the rules in the Constitution in becoming President and birthers have utterly failed to prove any misconduct in doing so), but against a straw man version of a politician you are prejudiced against.








Hate is bad. Pleeeease stop hating the criminal in the White House! You are a lighthouse beacon that needs to be turned off. We, the subversive Progressive establishment, do NOT want anyone finding their way to the light of Truth. So just shut it down already! We WON! We are the Champions! It doesn't matter how we won so stop pointing out the Truth about the Lance Armstrong presidency of our Dear Leader, Barackula Obominus (aka; BAIR-ek o-BAM-a, a fraud through-and-through)





The birthers are a lighthouse warning ships away from a clear passage through the shoals. Fortunately, very few people are foolish enough to believe their signal. You can keep calling President Obama a fraud, but you have been unable to prove that in the court of public opinion, much less in a court of law. The obvious conclusion is that the only frauds here are the birthers.








"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#4

Post by BillTheCat » Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:35 pm

Slartibartfast =D> So, it appears he thinks you are Doc Conspiracy? :-k And in the end, his argument consists of mangling the President's name. Solid debating skills.
'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#5

Post by Slartibartfast » Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:51 pm

Slartibartfast =D> So, it appears he thinks you are Doc Conspiracy? :-k And in the end, his argument consists of mangling the President's name. Solid debating skills.A.R. Nash is my personal candidate for "Most Whack-a-doodlely-est Birfer Evah", so any assumptions about what he is thinking should be undertaken very carefully. I'm not sure if he thinks I'm Doc because I recently said my first name was Kevin or if he was just referring to Doc and not me, but it really doesn't matter because, for the most part, I agree with anything Doc says (and presumably vice versa).His debating skills go far beyond the mangling of names---he's got an uncanny ability to create analogies which are almost, but not quite, completely invalid, a tendency to consider his own ignorant, self-contradictory authority as unimpeachable and a case of logorrhea which rival's that of Mario. If you don't believe me, check out his website (the link is on most comments he makes over at Mario's blog---I'm not going to help him out by posting it here [Sorry Rikker]).
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7767
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Edmonds. WA
Contact:

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#6

Post by PatGund » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:06 pm

Ah, A.R. Nash. He's the one who came up with the five or six forms of US citizenship, has well as "copper", "silver", "gold", and "platinum" levels of citizenship.Here's [link]what he wrote in 2012 on such,http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2012/06/ ... 5-million/[/link]"Citizenship comes in an assortment of types. The lowest type is the provisional citizenship of minors with foreign fathers, which can expire. It could be described as Copper Citizenship.Above that is citizenship by the naturalization process. It’s granted to foreigners who undergo the pledge of allegiance to the Constitution and the United States, and renounce all allegiance to their homeland. It can be called Silver Citizenship.Above that is statutory citizenship, -that granted to children born abroad of mixed-nationality marriages, -having American & foreign parents. It can be called Golden Citizenship.Above that is citizenship obtained by the authority of the 14th Amendment for children of legal immigrants who are subject to conscription into the United States military without any right to refuse.Neither the Congress nor the executive branch can prevent, redefine, withdraw, or repeal the right to that citizenship because it isn’t bestowed by them but by a constitutional amendment that is far above their pay grade.It can be called “Platinum Citizenship”."That's four levels. The fifth??"They are the indigenes natural citizens. Born of an American father and an American mother. Their citizenship is beyond the reach of naturalization and constitutional statutes. It’s immune to all citizenship law because all the laws that exists were written for births involving foreign parents.Congress was given the authority to write a uniform naturalization rule for all the states, and nothing more. It has never had any authority over the status of natural citizens. They are outside the purview of its legislating authority. Off-limits, thanks to the Constitution not granting any authority in that area of citizenship.So how can we describe such citizenship? Platinum is already taken. So we need to go beyond the realm in which those precious metals are found.Just as natural citizenship is beyond the realm of legal citizenship, so we need to go beyond the realm of terrestrial elements, -to the realm of extraterrestrial elements. I speak of the one that is hardly found on Earth, it only comes from outer space. It provides the name for natural citizenship; namely Iridium Citizenship."

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#7

Post by Slartibartfast » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:20 pm

Ah, A.R. Nash. He's the one who came up with the five or six forms of US citizenship, has well as "copper", "silver", "gold", and "platinum" levels of citizenship.Yes. The crazy is strong in this one...
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#8

Post by verbalobe » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:21 pm

Pat, when you introduced your post by saying Nash had concocted those 'metal' levels of citizenship, but before I read the quoted selections themselves, I was SURE you were speaking somehow metaphorically, snarkily overstating the crazy so as to make a point or get a chuckle.





Little did I know!! :crazy: :crazy:





Here's the thing: a lot of these citizenship screeds are a little like one half of a Socratic teaching session, where the pupil parrots back in their own words what, after their study, they understand the facts to be.





In RealWorldTM interactions, the more knowledgeable teacher would then say, no, you do not have it right... Let's go over it again and correct your misunderstandings.





But in Birfistan, there IS no "more knowledgeable teacher." Anyone can ooze up from their basement with an invented theory, assert that it is "troof," and never acknowledge that they actually don't know anything about it.





It's like they don't even acknowledge there is even such a thing AS "knowing."

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#9

Post by Slartibartfast » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:26 pm

Pat, when you introduced your post by saying Nash had concocted those 'metal' levels of citizenship, but before I read the quoted selections themselves, I was SURE you were speaking somehow metaphorically, snarkily overstating the crazy so as to make a point or get a chuckle.





Little did I know!! :crazy: :crazy:





Here's the thing: a lot of these citizenship screeds are a little like one half of a Socratic teaching session, where the pupil parrots back in their own words what, after their study, they understand the facts to be.





In RealWorldTM interactions, the more knowledgeable teacher would then say, no, you do not have it right... Let's go over it again and correct your misunderstandings.





But in Birfistan, there IS no "more knowledgeable teacher." Anyone can ooze up from their basement with an invented theory, assert that it is "troof," and never acknowledge that they actually don't know anything about it.





It's like they don't even acknowledge there is even such a thing AS "knowing."Nash has essentially assumed that he is the infallible "most knowledgeable teacher" and is quite astonished to find that pretty much no one agrees with the "truths" that are so clearly self-evident to him.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#10

Post by Slartibartfast » Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:00 pm

A poster named TJ took umbrage to my "attack" here is my response:





TJ wrote:





Slartibartfast,





I was polite and respectful, and you attacked me for no reason.





I put a high value on civility, but an even higher one on reciprocity. Politeness is merely the appearance of civility, true civility must include intellectual honesty as well---something which is noticeably lacking throughout the entire birther movement. Far more than enough dishonesty by the posters here has been documented by myself and others so as to preclude any presumption of civility. That being the case, I didn't attack you (I made one high probability assumption---that you hate President Obama---that I will happily apologize for if you can tell me what you like about our president). I'll dissect my original comment below so that you can point out exactly where and how you think I attacked you...





I did nothing to raise your ire,except possibly express a truth that disturbs you.





The truth doesn't disturb me at all. What disturbs me are people who repeat lies, willfully misrepresent their opponents and incessantly use logical fallacies in service of a proposition contradicted by the evidence which they assume to be true beyond all doubt (never a good idea).





I am trying to learn about the meaning of the phrase "natural born citizen. The fact that I chose this place to express my puzzlement seems to bother you, and apparently makes you assert some unfounded and untrue assumptions about me.





You chose poorly (my opinion). I'll address the assumptions I made regarding you below and will answer any criticism you have on the merits of my arguments.





In Texas tradition, when someone is a bully, we kick their butt until they apologize.





It's easy to get me to apologize---just present an intellectually honest response showing where I was wrong or made unwarranted assumptions and I will admit my mistake or address your assertions on their merits.





I don't think you are worth the effort, but I will say this:





You have been a rude, combative stack of bloviating bovine excrement, and you should be ashamed of yourself.





I have said nothing here which isn't objectively true, supported by relevant authority, or my honest opinion (identified as such). On the other hand, people on this site have repeatedly called me names like "traitor", continually and willfully misrepresented my arguments, and have committed so many logical fallacies that it is nearly impossible to document them all. In particular, most of the birther arguments on this blog boil down to "begging the question" (assuming the conclusion they are trying to establish) or misrepresenting either their opponent or the authority which they are citing. On the other hand, I have occasionally been impolite. Who should be more ashamed of themselves?





When someone addresses you respectfully, you show them respect in return. The attack you made on me was totally uncalled for.





Again, there wasn't really any attack on you (as opposed to attacks on the assumptions inherent in your comment), nor any particular disrespect (beyond a level of snark that you are going to need to get used to if you continue using this "internet" thing...





I consider us even now, and I hope I never have the pleasure of corresponding with you again.





Like the song says, you can't always get what you want.





Just to give a small (but objective) example of Mario's dishonesty, we recently had a discussion about the terms "subset" and "proper subset" in which Mario said the following:





"How can you with a straight face maintain that my saying natural born citizens is a proper subset of citizens implies that natural born citizens is a subset of citizens? How can anything “imply” that a proper subset is a subset of a set? Do you not know that being a proper subset, rules out being a subset of the set? What is amazing is that you have the nerve to inject politics into the honorable field of knowledge that we call mathematics."





Not only wasn't I "injecting politics" into mathematics, I was saying things that are trivially proved from the most basic definitions of set theory---namely that a "proper subset" of a set is also a "subset" of that set. It is mind-boggling to me that anyone would make a comment that is so demonstrably and egregiously false and at the same time so utterly trivial, but that's exactly what Mario did. The only difference between this case and his usual technique is that he normally uses much more verbiage to hide his fallacious logic.





Note: My use of the word "imply" is in the logical sense, i.e. it is implied because I can prove it to be the case.











TJ in Texas said:





"I have difficulty with the notion that the Congress, under their naturalization powers, and by Naturalization Acts, made new "natural born citizens" from time to time. When the naturalization occurs makes no difference, it is still naturalization. Natural born and naturalized are polar opposites."





Here is my annotated response:





TJ,





You may have a problem with it, but the first Congress (you know, the one which included many of the Framers) obviously didn't since they explicitly made new natural born citizens.





Since the Naturalization Act of 1790 made some children born overseas to US citizens natural born, this statement is objectively true. Furthermore, it contains nothing which can be considered an attack.





Since the SCOTUS has never objected, it is a certainty that the Congress retains that power to this day (whether or not they have actually used it).





I corrected this later to say that the SCOTUS never declared this act unConstitutional and, given that correction, it is again objectively correct. It is clearly within the power of the Congress to pass a law containing the same wording as the 1790 Naturalization Act if they so choose.





I would suggest that the reason for your incredulity is that you have assumed several falsehoods in your desperation to deny the legitimacy of President Obama.





In other words, it is my opinion that you are working from false assumptions (which is my honest opinion). I have also ascribed a common trait of birthers to you. If you do not wish to deny the legitimacy of President Obama, then I truly apologize, but most birthers show they care more about delegitimizing President Obama than the Constitution by their words and actions. Since there is no longer any way to directly attack President Obama's eligibility, if they truly cared about "correcting" the interpretation of the Constitution (or even effecting how President Obama "goes down in history"), then they would focus on what they could do, namely, advocate an Amendment to define "natural born citizen" or prepare to challenge the eligibility of 2016 candidates.





The first option is off the table with most birthers because it would implicitly admit that President Obama is eligible under the law as it stands now, so has no chance of removing him from office or tarnishing his legacy. If I truly believed the birther arguments and only cared about the correct interpretation of the Constitution, I would be preparing to challenge the eligibility of Piyush Jindal and Marco Rubio (Rafael Cruz should also be included, but his eligibility doesn't depend on the same argument as President Obama's). Honest birthers would be selecting a Republican candidate for the presidency and working to get him on the primary ballot in as many states as possible. This would give said candidate standing to challenge the ballot access of Jindal and Rubio on the grounds of their eligibility. Such a goal would also require determining the best states in which to file such a challenge and then writing the complaints so that they may be filed at the appropriate time. If Jindal and Rubio were ruled ineligible, it would cast doubt on President Obama's eligibility as well (there would still be the argument that, post Cable Act, a citizen mother is as good as a citizen father). That's what I'd be doing if our positions were reversed, however I strongly doubt that we'll be seeing any kind of good faith effort from birthers in this matter.





Why do you hate him so?





Again, tell me what you like about President Obama and what he's done right as POTUS and I'll gladly apologize for this comment.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15626
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#11

Post by Reality Check » Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:16 pm

Nash posted a lot of comments at my blog a while back. He claims Barack Obama was born in Vancouver, B. C. He never actually had any proof of course. He wrote two long articles but there isn't shred of proof in either of them that Obama was born in Vancouver. They are nothing but verbose speculation. [link]Part I,http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/10/ ... ham-obama/[/link] and [link]Part II,http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/20 ... er-pt2.pdf[/link]He also claimed the AP JPG black and white photo of the LFBC could have been made from the White House LFBC PDF (which he thinks is a forgery). He attempted to create his own version from the WH LFBC and I showed that if you enlarge his and compared it to the AP image it was obvious that there was detail not visible in one he manufactured that was visible in the AP image. He quit commenting about that time.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12384
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#12

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:13 pm

Vancouver???? Really, Vancouver??????Oh, well, I guess when you are making it up with both hands it really doesn't much matter, but Vancouver???
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#13

Post by Slartibartfast » Wed Jun 11, 2014 12:56 am

Vancouver???? Really, Vancouver??????





Oh, well, I guess when you are making it up with both hands it really doesn't much matter, but Vancouver???The thing about Mr. Nash is that he makes up a lot. He's written thousands of words about why he believes that President Obama was born in Vancouver (all of it stated as if it were unimpeachable fact).
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

brygenon
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:42 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#14

Post by brygenon » Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:37 am

My favorite -- or least favorite depending on how I look at it -- example of Adrien Nash's work appeared in Esquire Apuzzo's blog comments on 22 Oct 2013.On another subject, if you ask an obamunist this question: 'To which animal family do mules belong? (Of which family are they natural members, -horse or donkey?)'; their answer invalidates Obama's eligibility.Hybrid animals, like hybrid plants, cars, and citizens, do not belong to any natural group. They are the product of an unnatural alliance that violates the Natural Law of uniformity of origin.[/break1]blogger.com/comment.g?postID=3651895997482884113&blogID=7466841558189356289&isPopup=false&page=3]https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?postI ... lse&page=3Does he not get how that reads?

obama--nation
Posts: 154
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:27 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#15

Post by obama--nation » Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:05 am

Slarti said:


"The thing about Mr. Nash is that he makes up a lot. He's written thousands of words about why he believes that President Obama was born in Vancouver (all of it stated as if it were unimpeachable fact)."





Nash replies: "makes up"?? I take known facts and extrapolate consequences of those facts. The result is so convincing that no obot yet has even attempted to dispute any of the elements of the Vancouver scenario. None.





Why not? Because they know darn well that everything is plausible, and likely probable, and even possibly irrefutable.


They have no basis to counter any of it and so they remain silent as they must. That spares them from looking like fools and avoids drawing attention to the subject by raising an objection.





Their best response is simply silence, and they have employed it in spades, -until some clown who hasn't read "Why Baby Obama Was Born in Vancouver" or "The Vancouver Scenario" pipes up with mocking incredulity not knowing that it would be best to never raise the subject in any way. It is too disturbing and enlightening for the obot world to handle. Otherwise they would counter it with facts and assumed consequences of their own. They don't do that because they can't do that and they know it all too well for comfort.





As for the appellation of "Dr. Communist", it may be true that it goes too far. But it may not be true. We know from US Law that naturalization is forbidden to anyone with ties to any present or former communist group or affiliate or off-shoot front-group. We know that Obama was a candidate for State Senate as a member of the New Party which was a socialist political party, meaning backed by communists or communist sympathizers. Anyone who supports a man as steeped in Marxist ideology as Obama can reasonably be viewed as a communist sympathizer.





But there's a big difference between real-world communism and ideological, conceptual, idealized communism. Obama is more of the latter and has a poor grasp of the former. I simply have to assume that any intelligent person who staunchly backs Obama must be a fellow traveler and sympathizer with his desire to fundamentally transform American into a socialist paradise.


My conundrum is that either I am wrong about such a person or such a person is really blind and stupid when it comes to judging a politicians motives and philosophy, -or both.

User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#16

Post by BillTheCat » Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:22 am

Well, hullo there Mr. Nash.PRESIDENT Obama is still PRESIDENT. Thanks for visiting! :point:
'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll


User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#18

Post by Piffle » Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:28 am

[highlight]My conundrum is that either I am wrong about such a person or such a person is[/highlight] really blind and stupid when it comes to judging a politicians motives and philosophy, -or both. :mememe: Oh, I can help with this conundrum. You're wrong.

User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#19

Post by BillTheCat » Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:29 am

Anyone who supports a man as steeped in Marxist ideology as Obama can reasonably be viewed as a communist sympathizeAnother ignorant nobody who has no idea what "Marxist" means, and no, the President isn't "steeped" in anything but love of our country, thanks. Idiots like you still think it's the 1950's and "commies" are around every corner. That version of America, unfortunately for you, ain't ever coming back. Ever. [-(
'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12384
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#20

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:02 am

Vancouver???? Really, Vancouver??????





Oh, well, I guess when you are making it up with both hands it really doesn't much matter, but Vancouver???The thing about Mr. Nash is that he makes up a lot. He's written thousands of words about why he believes that President Obama was born in Vancouver (all of it stated as if it were unimpeachable fact).To say that Nash "makes up a lot" is kind of like saying water is wet, and not to mention not being the least original in the process. But seriously, Vancouver??
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#21

Post by Slartibartfast » Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:40 am

Well, it's been quite a while since a birther braved the Fogbow! Welcome Mr. Nash! =D>





Slarti said:


"The thing about Mr. Nash is that he makes up a lot. He's written thousands of words about why he believes that President Obama was born in Vancouver (all of it stated as if it were unimpeachable fact)."





Nash replies: "makes up"?? I take known facts and extrapolate consequences of those facts.





You string together factoids and find patterns that, like those in Rorschach blots, reveal more about you than they do about the real world.





The result is so convincing that no obot yet has even attempted to dispute any of the elements of the Vancouver scenario. None.





Um. No. Just because no one has tried doesn't mean we can't.





Why not? Because they know darn well that everything is plausible, and likely probable, and even possibly irrefutable.





Your individual assumptions might be barely plausible, but, taken together, your scenarios are highly improbably and possibly impossible.





They have no basis to counter any of it and so they remain silent as they must. That spares them from looking like fools and avoids drawing attention to the subject by raising an objection.





Really? Let's test that claim...





Their best response is simply silence, and they have employed it in spades, -until some clown who hasn't read "Why Baby Obama Was Born in Vancouver" or "The Vancouver Scenario" pipes up with mocking incredulity not knowing that it would be best to never raise the subject in any way.





Okay, I think there's already been plenty of mocking incredulity here, so I guess it's time to raise the subject...





It is too disturbing and enlightening for the obot world to handle.





You really believe that, don't you?





Otherwise they would counter it with facts and assumed consequences of their own. They don't do that because they can't do that and they know it all too well for comfort.





So, you thought is was a good idea to come to the premier birther debunking forum and drop a challenge like this on the boogle*? I don't think you know what you're getting into, but you asked for it. I'm going to be mostly away from my computer until Sunday, but when I come back I'll debunk your Vancouver magnum opus---if there are any pieces of it left standing by then.




Sekrit Stuffs!
To the Boogle: On Sunday, I would really like to explain to Mr. Nash just how badly he was pwned, so I would appreciate any time any of you are willing to put in on debunking his tripe so I can just hit the high points. Besides, Adrien is the first birther to brave the Fogbow in quite a while---I think he deserves to see what everyone else is scared of.




*"Boogle" is the collective noun we use to refer to members of the Fogbow.





As for the appellation of "Dr. Communist", it may be true that it goes too far. But it may not be true. We know from US Law that naturalization is forbidden to anyone with ties to any present or former communist group or affiliate or off-shoot front-group. We know that Obama was a candidate for State Senate as a member of the New Party which was a socialist political party, meaning backed by communists or communist sympathizers. Anyone who supports a man as steeped in Marxist ideology as Obama can reasonably be viewed as a communist sympathizer.





But there's a big difference between real-world communism and ideological, conceptual, idealized communism. Obama is more of the latter and has a poor grasp of the former. I simply have to assume that any intelligent person who staunchly backs Obama must be a fellow traveler and sympathizer with his desire to fundamentally transform American into a socialist paradise.


My conundrum is that either I am wrong about such a person or such a person is really blind and stupid when it comes to judging a politicians motives and philosophy, -or both.





Jeebus Chris! Piffle was right. If you base your analysis merely on what President Obama has done since becoming president, your whole argument becomes ludicrous. President Obama hasn't governed as a communist, a socialist or even a progressive. He's been a center-right moderate who is to the right of Nixon on most issues. For example, "ObamaCare" is virtually identical to Bob Dole's alternative to HillaryCare---the same plan endorsed by the Heritage Foundation (including the individual mandate)---or the one Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts. No true liberal would ask for anything less than some form of single payer.


Game on, dude! May the most plausible theory win!








Brygenon,





No. No he doesn't. [-(
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#22

Post by Slartibartfast » Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:44 am

Vancouver???? Really, Vancouver??????





Oh, well, I guess when you are making it up with both hands it really doesn't much matter, but Vancouver???The thing about Mr. Nash is that he makes up a lot. He's written thousands of words about why he believes that President Obama was born in Vancouver (all of it stated as if it were unimpeachable fact).To say that Nash "makes up a lot" is kind of like saying water is wet, and not to mention not being the least original in the process. But seriously, Vancouver??Because it's close to Seattle where Dr. Dunham and President Obama showed up a little later and USURPER! and stuff. Seriously, you've got to read it to believe it...
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#23

Post by Slartibartfast » Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:47 am

Oh boy oh boy! http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/bo ... icon.gifGo get him! Give him a taste of some of that good Irish snark like you unleashed on Wilted Rose over at Doc C's.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
jtmunkus
Posts: 5692
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm
Location: Cone of Silence

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#24

Post by jtmunkus » Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:47 am

"...possibly irrefutable..." =)) =)) =))

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16654
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#25

Post by Suranis » Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:36 am

Oh what the heck, I'm sick in bed today so lets get down and start refuten'





[quote name=Slartibartfast]Nash replies: "makes up"?? I take known facts and extrapolate consequences of those facts.




Oh Mr Nash, oh brain whom my Penis shrivels in embarrassment at my comparative inadequacy, I must dare to question the tinest flay in your statement... Its bullshit.





[quote name=Reality Check]Nash posted a lot of comments at my blog a while back. He claims Barack Obama was born in Vancouver, B. C. He never actually had any proof of course. He wrote two long articles but there isn't shred of proof in either of them that Obama was born in Vancouver. They are nothing but verbose speculation. [link]Part I,http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/10/ ... ham-obama/[/link] and [link]Part II,http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/20 ... er-pt2.pdf[/link]




Ok lets just take the first link there. Once we skip the first half which is verbal puke, we FINALLY fet down to some statements of the facts





The theory supporting Obama claims that anyone born within American sovereignty is not only “a citizen of the United States” but is also therefore “a natural born citizen” and thus eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief & President per the Constitution’s requirement.





Their rationale is that since the British devolved to labeling every baby born within the sovereignty of the Crown as a natural-born subject, therefore the United States, being the descendant of British law and common law, must also follow the same perversion which supposedly was the accepted status quo at the time of the Revolution and after.




Considering that at the constitutional convention they spent precisely no time whatsoever discussing that and merely wrote the law as it stood, then yeah, they took existing law. Even here in Ireland the basis for the law is English common law, and all english laws remained in force after independence until actively changed by an act of parliament. In order for you to say that established laws of citizenship were changed from British law, you have to show that they were actively changed, not simply "well they hated England so they tore up everything."





In other words, the greatest philosophical minds in American history, the founders of the nation and framers of the Constitution, the men who believed in unalienable natural rights and not the rights of Kings looked to the rejected British system for how humans relate to their government, and decided that American citizens were not really citizens and the sovereigns of the 13 new nations, but the proposed central government was the new King and was sovereign over them and owned them if born within its borders, just like the King owned everyone born within his




Ah the joy of the mental midget. I direct your attention to the very first supreme court case, which was decided by JOHN JAY. Yes that guy who wrote the letter to Washington. it was called Chisolm V Georgia. In it Jay lays out the bases of the states authority, in that the state is the VICEROY of the people. But even more shockingly, in jis concurring opinion Justice Iredell conciders English Common law to be in force in all the states until overwritten!





[/break1]justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/419/case.html]http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal ... /case.html





The only principles of law, then, that can be regarded are those common to all the States. I know of none such which can affect this case but those that are derived from what is properly termed "the common law," a law which I presume is the groundwork of the laws in every State in the Union, and which I consider, so far as it is applicable to the peculiar circumstances of the country, and where no special act of legislation controls it, to be in force in each State as it existed in England (unaltered by any statute) at the time of the first settlement of the country. The statutes of England that are in force in America differ perhaps in all the States, and therefore it is probable the common law in each is in some respects different. But it is certain that, in regard to any common law principle which can influence the question before us, no alteration has been made by any statute which could occasion the least material difference, or have any partial effect. No other part of the common law of England, it appears to me, can have any reference to this subject but that part of it which prescribes remedies against the Crown. Every State in the Union, in every instance where its sovereignty has not been delegated to the United States, I consider to be as completely sovereign as the United States are in respect to the powers surrendered. The United States are sovereign as to all the powers of Government actually surrendered: each State in the Union is sovereign as to all the powers reserved. It must necessarily be so, because the United States have no claim to any authority but such as the States have surrendered to them. Of course, the part not surrendered must remain as it did before. The powers of the general Government, either of a legislative or Executive nature, or which particularly concerns treaties with foreign powers, do for the most part (if not wholly) affect individuals, and not States. They require no aid from any State authority. This is the great leading distinction between the old Articles of Confederation and the present Constitution.




Jay himself wrote





1st. In determining the sense in which Georgia is a sovereign State, it may be useful to turn our attention to the political situation we were in prior to the Revolution, and to the political rights which emerged from the Revolution. All the country now possessed by the United States was then a part of the dominions appertaining to the Crown of Great Britain. Every acre of land in this country was then held mediately or immediately by grants from that Crown. All the people of this country were then subjects of the King of Great Britain, and owed allegiance to him; and all the civil authority then existing or exercised here, flowed from the head of the British Empire. They were in strict sense fellow subjects, and in a variety of respects one people. When the Revolution commenced, the patriots did not assert that only the same affinity and social connection subsisted between the people of the colonies which subsisted between the people of Gaul, Britain, and Spain while Roman Provinces, viz., only that affinity and social connection which result from the mere circumstance of being governed by the same Prince; different ideas prevailed, and gave occasion to the Congress of 1774 and 1775.





The Revolution, or rather the Declaration of Independence, found the people already united for general purposes, and at the same time providing for their more domestic concerns by State conventions and other temporary arrangements. From the Crown of Great Britain, the sovereignty of their country passed to the people of it, and it was then not an uncommon opinion that the unappropriated lands, which belonged to that Crown, passed not to the people of the Colony or States within whose limits they were situated, but to the whole people; on whatever principles this opinion rested, it did not give way to the other, and thirteen sovereignties were considered as emerged from the principles of the Revolution, combined with local convenience and considerations; the people nevertheless continued to consider themselves, in a national point of view, as one people; and they continued without interruption to manage their national concerns accordingly; afterwards, in the hurry of the war and in the warmth of mutual confidence, they made a Confederation of the States the basis of a general government. Experience disappointed the expectations they had formed from it, and then the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution. It is remarkable





Page 2 U. S. 471





that, in establishing it, the people exercised their own rights, and their own proper sovereignty, and, conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, "We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution." Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country, and, in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will that the State governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform. Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a State to govern themselves in a certain manner, and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects in a certain manner. By this great compact however, many prerogatives were transferred to the national government, such as those of making war and peace, contracting alliances, coining money, etc. etc.





If then it be true that the sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State, it may be useful to compare these sovereignties with those in Europe, that we may thence be enabled to judge whether all the prerogatives which are allowed to the latter are so essential to the former. There is reason to suspect that some of the difficulties which embarrass the present question arise from inattention to differences which subsist between them.





It will be sufficient to observe briefly that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the Prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority, and from his grace and grant derives all franchises, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial controul and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability became incompatible with such sovereignty. Besides, the Prince having all the Executive powers, the judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the Prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African





Page 2 U. S. 472





slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.





From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and preeminences; our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens.




TL;DR, The great Mr Nash is wrong.





Back to Mr Nash





Supposedly, in their view, native-birth is the basis of citizenship and all native-born persons (even if not true natives) can be labeled as natural born citizens, -with “natural” somehow meaning “native”.




There no "somehow About it, GNash. The flat out said it. St George tucker was a revomutionary Hero and Federal Judge who was appointed by John Jay. He wrote in 1803





"That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, where-ever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague."




So... oh yes, skipping down the page we find that Nonster Nash has figured he is going to be drowned in quotations from people who actually know what the hell they are talking about, While he has provided a grand total of zero authorities to support what he is yammering about.





It was steeped in the British system of law imposed in the colonies, which was built around “The Divine Right of Kings” philosophy in which the King was to be obeyed as Lord & Master (and owner) of all souls born within his dominion with one word describing the members of the monarch’s nation, that word being “subject”, -not CITIZEN.





In support of their hybrid basis of citizenship, they present an extensive collection of quotes of presumptuous suppositions, ambiguous statements or twisted meanings by uncertain men mouthing what they’d always heard and read from ignorant men who preceded them and who were educated in the British monarchist manner of thinking, none of whom grasped the fundamental underlying principle on which the natural membership of free men in a democratic republic is based.




Firstly, as noted by Jay, the monarchical and feudal system was NOT that of "Owner slave" it was "Liege-Vassal" A vassal declared his obedience to the Liege, but in return gained protection from his enemies and the Liege agreed to take care and protect the Vassal. The was the original basis of the feudal system in its original form, and even in its worst excesses Serfs theoretically had rights which could be appealed to the King for redress. Serfs were not slaves, and the Lord had responsibilities to the Serfs which he could be brought down for not fulfilling. It happened more than you might think.





Second, the "extensive collection of Blah blah" is whats called "Legal Precident" which is what the entire American system of law is based on, and which basicly is why you havent won a single case, becasue everyone from the beginning of the USA has said you are wrong.





Lets toss some of those "Ambigous statements" out, Shall we?





William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)





The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.




WOW, I never realised how ambigous and non specific that was.





And lets go even further back, to Blackstones Commentaries onthe laws of England 1765





The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.




CHOKE! That's, like before AND AFTER the drafting of the constitution!! What an uncertain meaning!!





And I know thats subject, right? Good thing they say that subject and citizen are different oh wai





United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)





“The Act of Congress confers citizenship. Who are citizens, and what are their rights? The Constitution uses the words “citizen” and ‘”natural-born citizens;” but neither that instrument nor any Act of Congress has attempted to deûne their meaning. British jurisprudence, whence so much of our own is drawn, throws little light upon the subject. . . .





“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. .Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. 2 Kent Com. 1 ; Calven’s Case, 7 Coke, 1 ; 4 Black. Com. 366 ; Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. Ch. 139.




And then of course there's





Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844).





Summary of Case:


"The defendant, Julia Lynch, was born in the City of New York in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city. She re-turned with them the same year, to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States." [NYLO at 238.]


Excerpt:


"It is an indispensable proposition, that by the rule of common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States. And this rule was established and inflexible in the common law, long anterior to the first settlement of the United States and, indeed, before the discovery of America by Columbus. By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subject, without reference to the status or condition of their parents. So if a Frenchman and his wife, came to England, and had a son during their stay, he was a liege man. This was settled law in the time of Littleton, who died in 1492. And its uniformity through the intervening centuries may be seen by reference to the authorities, which I will cite without further comment[list of citations to cases/authorities].





Mr. Chitty [one of authorities cited], says that by the common law, all persons born out of the king's dominion and allegiance were deemed aliens; and whatever were the situation of his parents, the being born within the allegience of the king, constituted a natural born subject.He states no exception to the latter proposition; although there are some exceptions to the former, in favor of children of British subjects who are born in foreign countries...." [NYLO at 238.]


***


"At and before the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the case was undoubtedly different. ... Foreigners arriv[ing] here intermediate the Declaration and the adoption of the constitution, became citizens or continued aliens, according to the laws of the several states where they resided; and the children of aliens born here during that interval, became citizens of those states, because, as will presently be shown, the common law was in that respect, the law of all the states. [NYLO at 241.]


***


[after discussion of common and statutory law in colonies during pre-Constitution period]: "It may then be safely assumed,


that at [244] the Declaration of Independence, by the law of each and all the thirteen states,a child born within their territory and liegeance respectively, became thereby a citizen of the state of which he was a native.





This continued unchanged to the time when our National Constitution went into full operation.There is no evidence of any alteration of the rule in any of the states during the period that intervened; and the references which will be made under another head, show conclusively that there had been no intermediate change to their policy."[NYLO at 243-44.]


***


"In regard to the effect of birth upon the right of citizenship, it is my duty not to establish the rule of law for the first time, but to ascertain a rule which has been in force from the era of the Federal Constitution, and which has affected the rights of persons and property constantly from that period to the present. Were this, however, to be determined solely on its intrinsic propriety and adaptation to our circumstances, I am not sure that any rule different from that of the common law, ought to be adopted in our country. It is indispensable that there should be some fixed, certain and intelligible rules for determining the question of alienage or citizenship. The place of nativity, furnishes one as plain and certain, and as readily to be proved, as any circumstance which can be mentioned. If we depart from that, and adopt the rule of some of the contintental nations, we have two more remote and difficult tests introduced. We are to ascertain first, by evidence of facts removed one generation from the time of the inquiry, the status or citizenship of the parents at the time of the birth of the propositus; and next, the election or intention of the propositus himself, in reference to his adoption of the country where he was born, or that of which his parents were citizens. And oftentimes, as in this case, the question will arise, before he attains to the age of election. In harmony with the certainty [248] of the common law rule respecting natives born, are our statutory provisions for the admission of aliens to the rights of citizenship. Such admission is a judgment of a court of record. Thus in almost every instance, we have an unerring guide or test, capable of ready investigation and authentication. The exceptions are the children of ambassadors, (who are deemed to be born within the allegjance of the sovereign represented,) and the children of our own citizens born abroad. ..... [NYLO at 247-48.]


***


"6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegience of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question. None was found by the counsel who argued this case, and so far I have been able to ascertain, it never has been expressly decided in any of the courts of the respective states, or of the United States. This circumstance itself, in regard to a point which must have occurred so often in the administration of justice, furnishes a strong inference that there has never been any doubt but that the common law rule was the law of the land. This inference is confirmed and the position made morally certain, by such legislative, judicial, and legal expositions as bear upon the question. Before referring to those, I am bound to say that the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind, so far as I have had the opportunity of knowing it, is that birth in this country does itself constitution citizenship. ... The universality of the public sentiment in this instance, is a part of the historical evidence of the state and progress of the law on the subject. It indicates the strength and depth of the common law principle, and confirms the position that the adoption of the Federal Constitution wrought no change in that principle." [NYLO at 250.]




I am truly shocked at how uncertain and ambiguous that ruling of the court was, and the ignorant harking back to uncertain men. I am truly shocked at how Mistaken I wasn't.





And I'm sure the greatful reader will be glad to hear thats All I really want to delve into Gnasty GNash's word salad for the moment. I think I have proven that the entire bases for his drivel is flawed, and without that basis his whole premise collapses like a house of cards.
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

Post Reply

Return to “FEMA Camp 7½”